tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post6839286095391558510..comments2024-01-23T07:34:52.253-08:00Comments on Copyrights & Campaigns: Court: 'no recourse' for victims of defamatory postings under Section 230Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-4482336596094076722010-04-21T11:28:30.604-07:002010-04-21T11:28:30.604-07:00I regret that I didn't see this post when it f...I regret that I didn't see this post when it first went up. Ben, I could not agree with you more!Ron Colemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08971795311919587950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-3584164002494894242009-12-25T15:35:30.366-08:002009-12-25T15:35:30.366-08:00Perhaps some may view this as a "silly" ...Perhaps some may view this as a "silly" question, but I have to wonder if other considerations may arise had this case been originally brought in state court?<br /><br />Clearly the COA's against the defaulting parties were based on state law. Clearly, merely because diversity jurisdiction is available is not in my view a basis by which a state court could sua sponte transfer the matter to a federal district court in the absence of a request by the original defendants.<br /><br />I ask this simply because I am interested in the interplay between state and federal law in matters to which Section 230 might pertain, and 230(E) seems to set the stage for such interplay.<br /><br />Can Congress be deemed by the rather casual language in Section 230 to have preempted the enforcement of a state court injunction?<br /><br />Yes, there may be issues concerning "who lives where", but what of the case where the plaintiff, defendant, and service provider all maintain a presence in a state sufficient for personal jurisdiction before a state tribunal?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-45533888530126018662009-12-25T15:32:39.523-08:002009-12-25T15:32:39.523-08:0010:04 here again: I was not focused on subpara. 1...10:04 here again: I was not focused on subpara. 1, but I don't think that language necessarily changes the analysis. There is no reason an injunction or order to remove a post needs to be predicated on a finding that the provider was the "publisher or speaker" of the post. It would be sort of like an innocent purchaser of a stolen item being ordered to return the item despite not being involved with the underlying theft. Are there cases where a plaintiff sued in the same action both (a) the provider seeking only injunctive relief and (b) the speaker seeking injunctive relief and damages? I'd be surprised if a federal court tossed out the injunctive cause of action against the provider on CDA grounds. <br /><br />(Also, re: Mr. Gringras's point, I think an injunction/finding solely against the thief in my stolen item hypo would not be sufficient to support an injunction against the innocent purchaser under Rule 65, for similar reasons as the defamation case we're talking about here---the thief did not act in concert with the purchaser.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-184566584565484862009-12-25T10:13:26.487-08:002009-12-25T10:13:26.487-08:00@Anonymous 10:04:
The statute doesn't preclud...@Anonymous 10:04:<br /><br />The statute doesn't preclude "liability" per se. Rather, it says: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 47 USC Sec. 230(c)(1).Ben Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-41470230527799829552009-12-25T10:04:55.848-08:002009-12-25T10:04:55.848-08:00Does "liability" as defined in the Act n...Does "liability" as defined in the Act necessarily include an injunction or order requiring removal of an offending post? I see congressional wisdom in limited/eliminating financial remedies against websites in such a situation---plaintiffs can get their money (if possible) from individuals. But I don't see why, necessarily, an order removing the offending language would constitute "liability."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-89532884542901019342009-12-24T20:27:40.056-08:002009-12-24T20:27:40.056-08:00@Ben: I see.
@Fat Man: Troll, troll, troll your...@Ben: I see.<br /><br />@Fat Man: Troll, troll, troll your boat, gently down the streeeeam...halojones-fanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05473935330204075559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-71087586940778133112009-12-24T07:11:33.699-08:002009-12-24T07:11:33.699-08:00Blackstone promised a legal remedy for every legal...Blackstone promised a legal remedy for every legal wrong, but he did not promise money or satisfaction, or solvent responsible defendants. You got your default judgement, that is your legal remedy. Like most legal remedies it is not worth much in money or emotional balm.<br /><br />The internet is a means of communication, not a source of truth. The post office is not responsible for the content of letters, and web sites aren't responible for anything. Like your mom said: "consider the source".<br /><br />Life is tough, pull up your big boy pants.Fat Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09554029467445000453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-22537753217134338312009-12-24T05:01:35.716-08:002009-12-24T05:01:35.716-08:00@Ben...
They are likley doing this because they n...@Ben...<br /><br />They are likley doing this because they need the Press, whereas Myspace, Yahoo, FB, do not.<br /><br />I have never heard of the Ripoff Report and will not go to their site because of this story. Let's just hope they stay insiginificant, and close down in the near future.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />AkcitaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-59568508756370943182009-12-23T10:55:30.538-08:002009-12-23T10:55:30.538-08:00@halojones-fan:
There's no doctrinal connecti...@halojones-fan:<br /><br />There's no doctrinal connection between this and the Veoh ruling. Section 230 explicitly exempts IP claims (including copyright claims). The Veoh case was about the scope of the safe harbor under Section 512(c) of the DMCA, which only covers copyright claims.Ben Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-65572851943255465762009-12-23T10:51:14.393-08:002009-12-23T10:51:14.393-08:00It'll be interesting to see how this decision ...It'll be interesting to see how this decision interacts with the <i>Veoh</i> ruling. It may become legally impossible to do anything about internet postings at all!halojones-fanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05473935330204075559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-76349109142890105682009-12-23T10:31:34.318-08:002009-12-23T10:31:34.318-08:00@David Gingras:
Thanks for your comment, but to s...@David Gingras:<br /><br />Thanks for your comment, but to say that "the ruling WAS NOT based on the CDA in any way" is highly misleading. Were it not for Section 230 of the CDA, the plaintiffs could have sued Ripoff Report directly, and, if the posts at issue were adjudged defamatory, the court could have ordered their removal. The plaintiffs did not sue Ripoff Report for the obvious reason that their claim would have been futile under Section 230. Thus their only recourse was to sue the posters themselves, and, as this opinion demonstrates, that was futile vis-à-vis Ripoff Report as well.<br /><br />Question for you: Why doesn't Ripoff Report -- like Facebook, MySpace, and the others -- do the right thing and remove the posts?Ben Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-35798719000091429752009-12-23T10:25:12.791-08:002009-12-23T10:25:12.791-08:00Folks,
I am general counsel for www.RipoffReport....Folks,<br /><br />I am general counsel for www.RipoffReport.com and I was the person who briefed this matter. I also sent the ruling to Prof. Goldman so he could use it to further the discussion on these important issues.<br /><br />Although Prof. Goldman attached the actual ruling to his blog, few people seem to have actually read it before forming opinions about the result. To clear up any misimpressions -- the ruling WAS NOT based on the CDA in any way. Thus, the headline of this page is completely wrong. In fact, if you read the decision, you'll note the judge expressly declined to decide whether the CDA protected Ripoff Report.<br /><br />Instead, the judge's decision was based solely on the well-settled rule that an injunction against Party X is not binding on non-parties. If anyone feels this is wrong, they need to read the briefs (available on PACER) to understand the legal issues before they disagree with the outcome.<br /><br />Also, while this page does not mention the facts of the case, it's also important to understand that there were three postings involved in the case, and two of those were not primarily about the plaintiffs (they were about the plaintiffs' daughter), and they were posted in 2003. Thus, when the plaintiffs sued in 2009, any claims based on those statements were likely barred by the 1-year statute of limitations regardless of the CDA. <br /><br />While I respect everyone's right to disagree with the ruling here, I think people should reserve judgment until they take the time to read the decision so that they can reach an informed conclusion about whether the judge was right.David Gingrashttp://www.ripoffreport.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-66491683905425959132009-12-23T09:16:01.773-08:002009-12-23T09:16:01.773-08:00"Because Section 230 says there ARE different..."Because Section 230 says there ARE different rules for the Internet."<br /><br />*sigh* well then I guess we're just screwed. <br /><br />On the other hand, this means that there's now a clear incentive to never, EVER use your real name on the internet!halojones-fanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05473935330204075559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-74218386211353076062009-12-23T09:14:31.517-08:002009-12-23T09:14:31.517-08:00Goldman doesn't allow comments, so I'll co...Goldman doesn't allow comments, so I'll comment here:<br /><br />"I'm troubled that online content could be categorically off-limits from compelled takedown based on a service provider’s choices. In some circumstances, continued publication may not be the right result."<br /><br />Well, yes, but don't we see megabytes of blog posts about Draconian DMCA Takedown By Youtube After Minor Pointless Dumb Complaint By Insignificant Clinging-To-Outdated-Business-Model Copyright Holder? Wouldn't this court decision seem to be in line with that thinking?halojones-fanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05473935330204075559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-34038368998852097722009-12-23T09:13:48.989-08:002009-12-23T09:13:48.989-08:00@halojones-fan:
"Why do people insist that T...@halojones-fan:<br /><br />"Why do people insist that There Is Something Different About The Internet?"<br /><br />Because Section 230 says there ARE different rules for the Internet. The same rules do NOT apply. If the printed "Ripoff Report Times" ran a user submission that defamed someone, there's no question that, under the common law, it would be liable. But Ripoffreport.com runs the exact same submission, and Section 230 provides it virtually absolute immunity, even after a court adjudicates the content as defamatory.Ben Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-2770839443968759602009-12-23T09:08:31.833-08:002009-12-23T09:08:31.833-08:00"So the bottom line is that the court was utt..."So the bottom line is that the court was utterly powerless to grant the plaintiffs an effective remedy against harmful speech that has no First Amendment value."<br /><br />But the court was really really sorry about it, and that counts for something, right? <br /><br />"When there is no remedy, there is no wrong."<br /><br />But what if the court goes against precedent and declares that there is no remedy?<br /><br />Why do people insist that There Is Something Different About The Internet? It's just communication, the same as newspapers or telephones or yelling out the window. The same rules apply.halojones-fanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05473935330204075559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-35952033460233827622009-12-23T06:18:45.334-08:002009-12-23T06:18:45.334-08:00On the other hand, as I learned when I took Equiti...On the other hand, as I learned when I took Equities in the 70's: When there is no remedy, there is no wrong.<br /><br />I think defamation common law should yield to the 1st Amendment and that web sites should be treated as "press." Ripoff Report includes a disclaimer as to accuracy and any reader knows, or should know, that all comments may or may not be truthful. The Plaintiffs remedy is against the original poster, not the web site. The Plaintiff can also post his own version of the facts.<br /><br />The government (acting through a court) should not regulate content.<br /><br />And for those who think that the action of a court is not government action, see Shelley v. Kraemer 1948.John Roethelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-38485829142131573522009-12-22T23:41:46.161-08:002009-12-22T23:41:46.161-08:00Can the Blockowicz's subpoena Ripoff Report fo...Can the Blockowicz's subpoena Ripoff Report for the information they'd need to find the posters?<br /><br />If so, this ruling seems correct -- if, after subpoena, RR refuses to turn over the info, they'd have a separate cause of action against RR (or at least, the court issuing the subpoena would).<br /><br />If RR is unable to identify the offending users, then the result seems wrong...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com